Apophis, a 20-million-tonne and 250-meter wide asteroid, has been found to be on a collision course with Earth, with the date of encounter being 13th April 2036. The risk of impact is 'only' 1 in 45,000, which remains quite significant on such a scale. International efforts should be made to try and avert a catastrophe.

Said By Aron Schatz

Yet they keep revising the impact chances and they keep going down.

This is absolutely right. However, there are quite a few other asteroids that are also good contenders for an Earth impact. This Apophis is only one among many, and it'd be nice to try and avert such an event, wouldn't it? Or did you like "Deep Impact" so much that you'd like to see it in reality?

Said By Thomas

Apophis, a 20-million-tonne and 250-meter wide asteroid, has been found to be on a collision course with Earth, with the date of encounter being 13th April 2036. The risk of impact is 'only' 1 in 45,000, which remains quite significant on such a scale. International efforts should be made to try and avert a catastrophe.

In 2036 I'll be 65 years old. I say, let me go on to the great beyond! Maybe the US can use all that "Star Wars" defense system to divert any big old asteroid? Make all that money we spent worth something!

The strategy would involve what they call a 'gravitational tractor'. Basically, if you fly a large enough spaceship near the asteroid, the gravitational pull exerted by the ship would deflect the asteroid from its trajectory. Much safer than blowing it up and risking smaller but still dangerous fragments from reaching Earth.

It is long way. 1 in 45000 chance of it hitting earth. There is quite a less chance but nonehtless, scientists might be able to stop it, if they can land robots on it and blow its core! Or as thomas says, but it will enter our solar system.

Most of the asteroids that represent a potential danger for us are already in the solar system. Nasa has even got a website dedicated to those Near-Earth Objects, as they are known. There are an estimated 2,000 of them, with varying sizes up to 32 Km in diameter.

I have a question, if anyone is actually in the field, shouldn't we be more concerned about one of these hunkers crashing in to the sun and disrupting the balance of the nuclear reaction that maintains our fair planet? After all it is a much bigger target, with a much greater gravitational pull, which would make it a much more likely target, especially for the big ones out there, shoemaker-levy asteroid already proved that a large mass will affect the current trajectory, as well as the integrity of any large object out there!

ok I get your point, but the Jupiter example was just that, what I should have said if it were one, say the size of our moon, and they are out there, even if it burns up prior to impact, would that not affect the amount of, and spectrum of light we receive for a significant enough time to damage our ecosystems, as well cause a huge increase in radiation outflow from the sun? I still stand that the sun is a much more likely target due to mass, and gravity!

Said By The Smoking Gun

Hey all,

I have a question, if anyone is actually in the field, shouldn't we be more concerned about one of these hunkers crashing in to the sun and disrupting the balance of the nuclear reaction that maintains our fair planet? After all it is a much bigger target, with a much greater gravitational pull, which would make it a much more likely target, especially for the big ones out there, shoemaker-levy asteroid already proved that a large mass will affect the current trajectory, as well as the integrity of any large object out there!

Any thoughts on this concept?

Anyone else consider this possibility?
TSG!

You made a perfectly valid point here. The disruption of solar activity, whatever the cause, may have a tremendous impact on Earth. Some mass extinctions are thought to have been caused by such events already in the past. You can have a look at this document, which I found by accident on the Net. It explains fairly clearly that a large object crashing into the Sun would affect its activity and have therefore a significant incidence on our planet.

That was some good reading, thanks, and I am very glad that everyone didn't completely dismiss this concept, even if it does give everyone something more to cause concern, and if I am correct aren't we about 40 my late for our next ele?

Personally I am more worried about Yellowstone going kablooie over any comet or asteroid, because the warning signs will be way too close to the event to actually do anything, even if there were something to do, and when the earth warms the volcanic activity increases, and we are in a warming trend. Hopefully though, it will be many smaller release valves going off, rather than that super caldera going off.

Actually, I am not sure if a global warming actually increases volcanic activity on Earth. This paper indicates that eruptions may mask the effect of climate change in the troposphere, but doesn't seem to establish any link between the two. Have you got any further information?

as you know, the US and other great and not so great nations have staunchly denied the existence of space ships. Aliens do not exist (according to them) and the Space Shuttle fleet is due to be retired, so we're screwed!

Said By Thomas

Actually, I am not sure if a global warming actually increases volcanic activity on Earth. This paper indicates that eruptions may mask the effect of climate change in the troposphere, but doesn't seem to establish any link between the two. Have you got any further information?

The detetction and planning to divert near earth objects from a collision course with earth might be futile ( even,if it is proven physically, scienitifically, and POLITCALLY possible) given the speed the UN has dealt with other, relitively small problems in recent years, it might be a total waste of time.
We might be able to remove or partially block the effects of one or two large objects, and then totally miss a small one, whos impact would trigger massive Tsunami's ,earthquakes, and volanic eruptions on a scale unseen in human times.
The surviors might then have to deal with the resulting disease and famine as the breakdown of the social, economic, and technological fabric we know. followed by a new ice age.

Not that this might not be a good thing for planet earth, with shrinking resourses, polution, over population, disease, war and famine at all time highs. Mother earth could use a rest, a massive reduction in the human race would do this.

Well logic would depict that if the overall temperature rises, then wouldn't atmospheric pressures increase? And if atmospheric pressure increases, then would the pressure below be better kept in check, or would the over all stress on a particular continental plate increase the need for volcanic release? From what I have gathered, a single volcanic eruption deposits more greenhouse gases in to the atmosphere, then all the cars in the usa do in a year, and we have had two large eruptions that I know of in the past year,(http://volcano.und.edu/) as for your comment about cooling, that is true when they spew out tremendous amounts of ash in to the atmosphere, which blocks/reflects light and uv back into space, often though, the lava will easily flow out from the sides, and mostly gases are released in to the atmosphere, but the big cool downs occur when the polar caps melt enough to de-salinate the north Atlantic, and cause the conveyor to come to a halt (also called the gulf stream) I do not know the names for the pacific equivalent, but prior to that we will get the warming effect first, then the cooling, and when that happens, an ice age can occur in as little as ten years time, unlike that movie, day after tomorrow!

I doubt the air pressure will rise significantly, if it's even noticeable (the earth isn't a sealed container the depth of the atmosphere will expand very slightly to hold the amount of gas At most at sea level the weight difference would be .0xx inches H2O gauge certainly not enough to effect volcanic activity. Even tidal waves (the tide, not Tsunami) which apply and remove 100's of tons of pressure per square mile per foot of depth, twice a day have no influence over geologic processes like earthquakes and volcano's.

Yes best evidence is the ice ages don't happen slowly, big eruption/collision (atmospheric effect is similar, lots of fine debris , in the stratosphere block incoming heat and light and the lower bigger dust lower down provides perfect nucleation sites for massive snow and ice storms. Eventually the upper dust settles out , but by then all the moisture has frozen out of the atmosphere leaving a highly reflective snow ice cover, which may not melt until the next event puts a dark , sooty/dusty layer on top. Summer doesn't come and by the next winter, snow storms so intense that they could bury mastodons alive, still chewing on summer vegetation. (some have been found apparently frozen upright on their feet, ie frozen while walking and eating) but glaciation would take a number of years.
even fairly small volcano's emit huge amounts of gases, Mount St' Helens has been emitting more sulfer dioxide and co2 then all the other sources in Washington, oregon and idaho combined, for the last 4 years, and this isn't even a particularly large eruption from a small volocano (1980 eruption was about 1 cubic KM, tambora about 100 KM cu, and yellowstone 1,000 KM cu) Where's the EPA when you need them?

To be honest, I'm not sure what to believe anymore. I've had this discussion with a friends who's adamant that the climate change is only natural and that only the political forces are trying to make us 'believe' that there's a human-caused global warming as an excuse for increased government regulation, more power, more control, bigger government agencies and etc.

Said By Thomas

To be honest, I'm not sure what to believe anymore. I've had this discussion with a friends who's adamant that the climate change is only natural and that only the political forces are trying to make us 'believe' that there's a human-caused global warming as an excuse for increased government regulation, more power, more control, bigger government agencies and etc.

Climmate changes are natural, even rapid Climmate change. However the current Climmate changes have definately been influenced by man. how much and how much is yet to come due to our excessive consumption is hard to say, however we are appoarching/have reached/recently past the tipping point.
We (along with a few thousands of species) are the fragile ones, the planet will still be here long after it unhabitable.
Humans are the only species that can make a choice/change OUR lifestyle to make a difference.
Where do you want to go, in the next 100 years?

I do agree that, responsible for the climate change or not, humans need to be a bit more respectful of their environment. After all, if this planet is to sustain us for millenia to come, we'd better learn not to upset the balance too much.